Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

English,
German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish – these are the top six most widely
spoken languages in the EU, according to Eurobarometre. Unlike them, the one
that ranks seventh on the list doesn’t enjoy an official status in the union that
now spans two thirds of Europe. It is Russian, spoken by around 6% of EU
residents.

Admittedly,
for most of them it is a second language – 1% of EU residents name Russian as
their mother tongue, which in absolute figures is comparable to the population
of Denmark or Finland. Russian is also much more widely used than major
immigrant languages, such as Turkish and Arabic.

Whether
the EU likes it or not, millions of its residents, to a varying extent, belong
to the Russophone cultural sphere, or, if we may use the term favoured by
Kremlin propaganda – the “Russian world”. For years, however,
the EU’s collective attitude to its Russophone component ranged between
indifference, and the desire to gradually eradicate it as the unfortunate
legacy of Communism and imperial expansionism.

But the
conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the risks of the EU (and the West in
general) alienating the Russophones, and failing to reach out to people in
Russia proper. In the absence of viable alternatives, Russian-speakers turn
into easy prey for the highly efficient and sophisticated Moscow propaganda
machine. This is a high and immediate security risk for EU neighbourhood
countries, and a considerable headache for EU-members in the eastern Baltics,
where native Russian-speakers make up to a third of the population.

Europe
should have stood up a long time ago and said that the Russian language is not owned
by the Kremlin. But the idea of launching a Russian-language TV channel based
in the EU, emerged only now, when Latvia, the country with the highest
percentage of Russian-speaking population, took over the EU presidency. It was
endorsed by Central European neighbours as well as by several Western
countries, most notably the UK. But is this plan realistic?

Europe should have stood up a long
time ago and said that the Russian language is not owned by the Kremlin.

The propagandist effect

Russian
media holdings churn out mega-tonnes of super-expensive entertainment shows and
series, from really tacky ones to the arguably intellectual. The propagandist
effect is achieved by inserting extremely biased and toxic news bulletins and
political commentaries into this constant flow of soap. Political programmes
are also a kind of entertainment or mass hypnosis – instead of accurately describing the
events, they aim at creating a fantasy universe, in which Russia is an island
of sanity and stability while the rest of the world is on the verge of apocalypse.

In 2013,
Russia’s Сhannel One alone spent 760 million euro, which is over 10%
of the Latvian government’s annual budget. Two other major Russian channels,
Rossiya and NTV, can afford spending of comparable amounts. But although it is
a loss-making enterprise, Channel One nevertheless returned most of the money
it spent in 2013 because Russia is a huge and lucrative retail market, so
commercials cost a fortune.

Speaking the same language

There is
simply no way EU countries can afford to replicate the Russian
entertainment/propaganda machine. It is not even worth trying. An Al
Jazeera-style transnational live news channel (with elements of entertainment)
is a more realistic plan, but again, where is that big-spending emir in the EU who
can pull it off?

The
story of European and American news organisations trying to connect with the
Russian-speaking audience is sad and dull. The only Western news channel
broadcasting in Russian language is Euronews – a boring and toothless affair, partly
owned by the Russian government through its main media holding VGTRK.

The story of European and American
news organisations trying to connect with the Russian-speaking audience is sad
and dull.

BBC Russian
Service, Radio Liberty, and the Voice of America all have video operations that
could be potentially expanded into fully-fledged channels, but they suffer from
a deep existential crisis. Who are they talking to and why? What is their
mission (apart from satisfying the ego of their Western managers or government
officials who prefer to ignore how little impact these outlets have on their
target audiences, despite generous funding)?

On the
contrary, garage-style projects launched and run by Russians without any
foreign assistance, instantly capture vast audiences in Russia and beyond.
Despite (or actually thanks to) the immense pressure from the authorities, the
now iconic Russian independent channel Dozhd is now surviving entirely by
selling subscription to its online broadcast, which perhaps provides the
healthiest commercial model for the Russian media market post-Putin. Dozhd is
hugely popular with Russophones in the EU, and already provides a viable
alternative to Putin’s TV – without any help from the Eurocrats.

If a
Russian-language channel under the auspices of the EU ever becomes a reality,
it will suffer from the same awkwardness that has been dogging the relations
between the EU and Russophones in general since the European Union union was
created. What is the EU’s plan for Russia? Will it ever start thinking about integration
or will it keep pretending that Russia is somehow on a different planet, and not here
in Europe? The EU acts on behalf of the whole of Europe, it likes to be
dubbed ‘Europe’, so what, then, is its message to the Russophone world, an integral
part of that very same Europe?

Practical issues

On top
of that, there are a number of practical issues that can only be resolved with
generous funding. Crucially, where the studios should be located, considering
that on six out of seven days a week the most relevant and interesting guests
will be either in Moscow or in Kiev. Operating on a shoe-string budget, you’ll
end up with inappropriately laidback presenters emerging from their untroubled
life in Riga or Berlin, and talking to the same pair of pundits for 30 minutes
in a row. If that’s the plan, then it’s better to scrap it right away.

Ultimately,
knowing the realities of EU officialdom, what are the chances of Eurocrats
inspiring a channel that will grab the attention of people they have only
theoretical knowledge about?

Instead
of watching taxpayers’ money sucked into the void, it might make more sense to
run a tender offering several long-term loans to a limited number of
privately-owned Russian-language start-ups that will compete with each other,
creating a healthier and more vibrant Russian-language media environment in the
EU and its neighbourhood. With hundreds of good journalists in dire straits
because of Putin’s clampdown on free media, undoubtedly there will be a few
good projects to choose from.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence. If you have any queries about republishing please contact us. Please check individual images for licensing details.